Although a Doctor is a Professional The Doctor is not a Lawyer
Post 4862
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gPNMyrtJ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPtpvAi6 and at https://lnkd.in/gQxUTxku, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Dr. Megan Rust appealed acting as her own attorney from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) in her action alleging five California state-law contract claims.
In Megan Rust, M.D., an individual v. Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings, No. 23-55186, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (August 23, 2024) the Ninth Circuit resolved the issues raised by Dr. Rust.
The Ninth Circuit declined to address Dr. Rust’s argument that this action concerns whistleblower retaliation because she raised it for the first time on appeal.
Labcorp’s submission of excerpted deposition transcripts, rather than complete transcripts, in support of its summary-judgment motion was entirely appropriate.
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions. Dr. Rust failed to produce evidence to controvert Labcorp’s evidence nor did she identify any specific material information in the omitted portions of the transcripts creating a genuine dispute.
ANALYSIS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES
If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrates the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, then the nonmoving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The district judge is not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Dr. Rust’s first claim, breach of contract. The district court properly concluded that: "extrinsic evidence-in the form of Dr. Rust’s acquisition of full-time malpractice insurance coverage and LabCorp’s supposed, but uncorroborated, oral statements contracting Dr. Rust for full-time work-was barred under the parol evidence rule because the parties executed a written, integrated agreement for “part-time professional pathology services, as requested.”
When parties enter an integrated written agreement, extrinsic evidence may not be relied upon to alter or add to the terms of the writing.
Dr. Rust waived any argument of error regarding summary judgment on her claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because her summary-judgment briefing affirmatively conceded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed with respect to this claim.
Dr. Rust’s “conclusory, self-serving” deposition testimony that Labcorp interfered with another business opportunity, standing alone, lacks detailed facts and any supporting evidence, so it is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Dr. Rust did not point to evidence in the record, other than her own declaration, showing a triable issue of a material fact.
The fact that a judge rules against Dr. Rust is not evidence that the district judge exhibited bias or engaged in judicial misconduct. Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a contract. Failure to prove the contract destroys the entire action brought by Dr. Rust in pro se. She was faced with a motion for summary judgment and failed to produce any evidence that established an issue of fact to defeat Labcorp’s motion for summary judgment and proved the maxim that a person who acts as her own attorney has a fool for a client.
THE ART OF ADJUSTING
I will be appearing on the “Art of Adjusting” podcast The link below is a preview of the podcast that will be posted in full next week. https://dropbox.com/scl/fi/ldkfrvc
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
